On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > Raymond Toy wrote: >> If this is the first release candidate, can you explain the difference >> between this and the 3.0.2 that was released a month or so ago? I'm a >> bit confused now on the numbering. > > I have been assuming that the numbering is: > > x.y.z > > x = major revision -- I do not expect to preside over one of these! > ASDF 2 was a major clean-up. ASDF 3 added substantial improvements in > dependency tracking, etc. > > y = change to API > > z = patch release > > This is what is enshrined in the ASDF versioning predicates, so I > figured I would stick with that. > Yes, that's about what it is. There's a comment around one of the occurrences of the version string, explaining the version scheme.
> Faré has always put a revision tag on everything, I suppose to make it > easier to identify where bugs appear and don't, etc. So I have been > sticking with this standard practice by adding that extra .1. > Actually, (a) I've only systematically put a git tag but on released versions and a few notable other versions; but (b) I've tried to bump the version number any time there was a change in asdf.lisp, so the number can always be used to precisely identify the code in a bug report. That's why (c) I've been using an extra digit such as this .1 in unreleased versions, to distinguish any two versions pushed to master. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It should be a grammatical if not legal offense to ascribe thoughts, opinions and decisions to "we" without a signed power of attorney.
